Tom Cary is The Telegraph's Formula One Correspondent. You can follow him on Twitter @tomcary_tel

Thoughts on Lotus v Lotus twitterings

Late last night a tweet popped up on my Blackberry from Tony Fernandes. "Very very happy over the judgment today," said the Team Lotus boss. "And extremely happy that full trial brought forward to march 21st. The good do always eventually win."

Fernandes may well be delighted that the trial to settle the Lotus naming rights dispute has been brought forward by almost a year, but I can assure you that his lawyers weren't. I was sitting in the High Court yesterday when a clearly exasperated Mr Justice Peter Smith – who has a reputation as a bit of a maverick – suggested that Group and Team Lotus stop dragging this sorry affair out and get all their disputes (which include intellectual property, licensing of a name, branding, legal process and ownership of legacy and history) done during this trial window.

It was quite a thing. They two sides were only in court for a summary judgement hearing brought by Group Lotus and thought they were going to have another year to prepare their cases. Not so. "There are no resource issues," the judge noted. "I find a speedy trial tends to focus the minds. Let's get it all sorted in one go."

Both sets of legal teams looked rather shocked. Perhaps they were thinking of the lost months spent poring over documents at £200 an hour or whatever it is they charge. But after being given 20 minutes to consult – during which time 1Malaysia's legal representatives said they had failed to get hold of Fernandes – they came back into the court room and expressed their reservations. 1Malaysia told the judge that it would be well nigh impossible to get themselves ready in the next eight weeks. Group Lotus were only marginally more enthusiastic. Both sides may yet try to have the trial put back.

Anyway, it was interesting to see later the spin that was later put on the hearing. Riad Asmat, Team Lotus CEO and another Twitter devotee, added the following: "very happy w/judgement, now go for full trial and insya-allah the truth will prevail..g'nite".

The truth will prevail. In a dispute that is mind-boggling even by Formula One's arcane standards, it will be tricky to establish what exactly constitutes the truth. Is the Team Lotus name robust enough to hold its own against Group Lotus? Will one of the two Lotuses be forced to re-brand and what would that mean for Group's deal with Renault if it loses? Both sides must be pretty nervous.

As Mark Daniels, an intellectual property lawyer at Browne Jacobson commented: "Team Lotus will be buoyed by this news, but it remains far from clear as to whether its claim will ultimately be successful. The barrier for a claim overcoming summary dismissal is not that great. Its also still unclear if anyone will enter the F1 season with the Team Lotus branding especially since 1MalaysiaF1 still owns a registered trade mark which covers advertising and which may yet be a serious barrier to Group Lotus appearing on the grid under the Team Lotus brand. Today the court impressed on the parties that they should seek to settle the dispute before the season begins. If they fail to settle the matter, it will proceed to trial on 21 March 2011. There are sure to be a few more twists and turns in this particular race."

There sure are. As an aside, it was interesting to note that 1Malaysia had not consulted with David Hunt, brother of the late F1 world champion James and the man from whom they have bought the Team Lotus name. When 1Malaysia were impressing upon the judge how difficult it would be to get people up to speed on the finer points of the case in the time available, Mr Justice Peter Smith asked if they were using Hunt – who was sitting just behind me in the court room – as a witness. "After all, hasn't he fought off many other such cases since 1995?" he inquired.

The 1Malaysia barrister admitted that he had not yet consulted with Hunt but might yet do so. It begs the question: why hasn't the man who sold the Team Lotus name to 1Malaysia, who has fought off many attempts to prise the marque from him, who must know more than almost anyone about the rights that name carries, whose arguments you would imagine to be instrumental to 1Malaysia's case, been asked to assist? It struck me as odd.

Perhaps they think they can do a perfectly good job without him? Perhaps they think he is untrustworthy? Either way, it seems to me that they will be arguing largely the same points that he has made in numerous court cases down the years.

I guess it will all come out in due course – or maybe not, if they agree to settle out of court.